Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Do not automatically unapply other documents if one is voided: 921385

Please vote for this suggestion if you agree.

Vote here: https://connect.microsoft.com/dynamicssuggestions/Feedback

Read about it here: https://connect.microsoft.com/dynamicssuggestions/feedback/details/921385/do-not-automatically-unapply-other-documents-if-one-is-voided

This refers to the new feature in GP2013 that will automatically unapply all documents (except payments) from a vendor invoice if even one of those documents is voided. For instance, if you pay an invoice using checks, credit memos, returns and write offs – ALL of those documents (other than checks) become unapplied when one of the checks is voided.

I just posted the suggestion on Connect, here’s why the new feature is a bad idea:

This new feature is a DISASTER and should be an option, NOT an automatic unapply of all non-payment documents. Here's what happens.

You have a payable to a vendor


You pay by check ($400)


You pay by check ($415)


You apply a credit memo of ($10)


You apply a credit memo of ($75)


You apply a return ($50)


You write off ($50)


Remaining Balance


At this point the invoice is fully applied and in history, as are the other apply documents.

Now, you void the $400 payment. Magically the following documents become unapplied:

  • The credit memo of ($10)
  • The credit memo of ($75)
  • The return for ($50)
  • The write off of ($50)

Now the balance of the invoice shows to be $585 instead of the ‘real’ balance of $400

WHAT! This is insanity!

So now you have to go back and figure out what those four documents should be applied to and apply them. This is causing a real problem and it should not behave this way. At least present a dialog asking the user if they want to unapply the other documents, don't just do it. And why the inconsistency with the payments, why aren't they unapplied too, the returns are.

This new 'automatic' feature is a nightmare and should instead be an option, not a mandate.

Kind regards,


No comments: